MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, GHAZIABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the revisional court dated 9-3-1988 contained in Annexure V attached with the writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The main grievance of the petitioner before me is that the order is without jurisdiction the chak proceedings had come to an end much before and denotification under Sec. 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act had also taken place on 15-9-1979. Therefore, the revisional court had no jurisdiction to disturb the chak of the petitioner. It has also been stressed before me that the petitioner was not a party before the revisional court and without hearing him the impugned order dated 9-3-1988 has been passed by the revisional court, therefore, it deserves to be quashed.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner i think no useful purpose will be served entertaining the writ petition and getting it getting it pending for years before this court if the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are correct that he was not heard nor was he a party in the revision petition, the revisional court should recall its impugned order dated 9-3-1983 and hear the petitioner and thereafter pass suitable orders strictly in accordance with law since the question raised on behalf of the petitioner that he was not a party to the revision petition nor was he heard by the revisional court and, therefore I direct the petitioner to approach the revisional court and apprise it of its mistakes when the revisional court will be satisfied with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, he shall not hesitate in recalling its order dated 9-3-1983 on any other technical ground.